The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[ding]

How fucking dumb. If you want to know what is going g on with climate science, you defer to climate scientists on the whole and the body of science on the whole. Even the most prolific climate scientist does this, as their own work encompasses only a tiny fraction of the mountains of mutually supportive research and evidence.

Can they tell me why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than previous interglacial cycles?

Can you explain why that is?

 

[ReinyDays]

[whimper whimper whimper] ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

[whimper whimper whimper] ...

Haha, that's what I thought.

It always ends this way. Keep in mind, this is from the non-climate scientist who thinks all non-scientists should shut the fuck up immediately. Apparently... so he can talk unopposed. How bizarre.

Now back to the regularly scheduled blog puking and cherry picking.

Meanwhile, the science remains unchallenged.

 

[ding]

[whimper whimper whimper] ...

I'm just gonna say it... that dude is a massive douche bag.

 

[ding]

Meanwhile, the science remains unchallenged.

<ahem>

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[ding]

Meanwhile, the science remains unchallenged.

<ahem>

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When you guys grow tired of trying out your material at "Amateur Hour" on a message board, I can provide contacts for climate scientists.

I would enjoy seeing your correspondences with them. I will even give you one of my email addresses to CC or BCC on all of the emails.

You know, to keep you honest.

So, who is ready to graduate from the minors to the big leagues? Hit me up, when you're ready.

 

[james bond]

This is all dynamics ... the push and pull of the high and low pressure systems ... nothing unusual about what you describe ...

I assume we agree the dynamics are still the same, but the results are different. What do you think could cause the results to be different? Changes to the atmosphere?

 

[Orangecat]

That is where uneducated slobs who think they have outsmarted experts belong.

Then get your stupid ass over there.

 

[Orangecat]

They have 12 inches of snow

And that proves MMGW how?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then get your stupid ass over there.

Ah yes, the ceiling of this troll's intellectual capability.

 

[Orangecat]

Yes, the general stuff. Like the headline summary for policy makers.

That's akin to reading the chapter titles of a book and saying you read the book, kid.

 

[ding]

When you guys grow tired of trying out your material at "Amateur Hour" on a message board, I can provide contacts for climate scientists.

I would enjoy seeing your correspondences with them. I will even give you one of my email addresses to CC or BCC on all of the emails.

You know, to keep you honest.

So, who is ready to graduate from the minors to the big leagues? Hit me up, when you're ready.

Why don't you ask them why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than the previous interglacial cycles and then get back to us?

 

[Orangecat]

Ah yes, the ceiling of this troll's intellectual capability.

You've been made a fool in this thread, fartfun. I'm just enjoying watching you flail around in your intellectual impotence.

 

[ding]

You've been made a fool in this thread, fartfun. I'm just enjoying watching you flail around in your intellectual impotence.

I think he is so use to being made to look like a fool he has grown accustomed to it.

 

[Orangecat]

I think he is so use to being made to look like a fool he has grown accustomed to it.

Foolishness of that magnitude has to have a genetic component as well as environmental, imho.

 

[daveman]

I am not sure how you guys were raised, but no, you have not outsmarted the experts with your Google searches and blog puking.

Here is how this works:

You go to the expert panel to see what the body of science says about climate change.

If you want to know, for example, our best ideas of what this will mean for Sea levels, you go see what the oceanographers say.

If you want to hear our best ideas for what acidification of our oceans means for marine ecosystems,you go ask the biologists and the ecologists.

Then, discuss. You don't ask uneducated slobs on message boards and youtube quacks for competing hypotheses. Unless you are a fraud.

Very simple.

So you can't even explain your cult's dogma, except by saying TRUST THE HIGH PRIESTS.

 

[james bond]

Show us your published research related to climate. Oh, you don't have any.

Here's mine. Can I torture you into submission now?

Emissions Gap Report 2021

With climate change intensifying and scientists warning that humanity is running out of time to limit global warming to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels, 2021 has been a fraught year for the planet. The Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On is the 12th edition in an annual series that...

www.unep.org

 

[daveman]

When you guys grow tired of trying out your material at "Amateur Hour" on a message board, I can provide contacts for climate scientists.

I would enjoy seeing your correspondences with them. I will even give you one of my email addresses to CC or BCC on all of the emails.

You know, to keep you honest.

So, who is ready to graduate from the minors to the big leagues? Hit me up, when you're ready.

Here's an idea: Why don't you write to some scientists whose interpretation of available data disputes AGW?

Or are you afraid of being exposed to heresy?

 

[surada]

Why don't you ask them why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than the previous interglacial cycles and then get back to us?

Perhaps its misnamed.. when in fact its more about climate extremes.